Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 670MX SLI

Place in the ranking	456	305
Place by popularity	not in top-100	48
Power efficiency	4.55	83.89
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	N13E-GR	Hawx Point
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 October 2012 (12 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1920	768
Core clock speed	600 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	5080 Million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	129.6
Floating-point processing power	no data	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	2x 192 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	2800 MHz	System Shared
Shared memory	-	+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

no data

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.8
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 670MX SLI 9.92

Radeon 780M 18.28
+84.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 670MX SLI 7042

Radeon 780M 12785
+81.6%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 670MX SLI 23526

Radeon 780M 41622
+76.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	68 +88.9%	36 −88.9%
1440p	10−12 −90%	19 +90%
4K	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −77.8%	32 +77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −105%	39 +105%
Elden Ring	27−30 −32.1%	37 +32.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −84.4%	55−60 +84.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −44.4%	26 +44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +26.7%	15 −26.7%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −66.7%	65 +66.7%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −63%	44 +63%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −65.4%	40−45 +65.4%
Valorant	35−40 −100%	70−75 +100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −84.4%	55−60 +84.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −38.9%	25 +38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%
Dota 2	35−40 +24.1%	29 −24.1%
Elden Ring	27−30 −50%	42 +50%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +28.1%	32 −28.1%
Fortnite	55−60 −69%	95−100 +69%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −38.5%	54 +38.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −28.6%	45 +28.6%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −18.5%	32 +18.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −63.6%	120−130 +63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −65.4%	40−45 +65.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −90%	55−60 +90%
Valorant	35−40 −100%	70−75 +100%
World of Tanks	168 −31%	220−230 +31%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −84.4%	55−60 +84.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −77.8%	30−35 +77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%
Dota 2	35−40 −80.6%	65−70 +80.6%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −53.7%	60−65 +53.7%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −17.9%	46 +17.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −63.6%	120−130 +63.6%
Valorant	35−40 −100%	70−75 +100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
Elden Ring	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 −46.2%	19 +46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −253%	160−170 +253%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −100%	16−18 +100%
World of Tanks	70−75 −76.1%	120−130 +76.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −94.7%	35−40 +94.7%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −50%	14−16 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −129%	45−50 +129%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −45.5%	32 +45.5%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −116%	40−45 +116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −66.7%	20 +66.7%
Valorant	24−27 −88%	45−50 +88%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
Dota 2	20−22 −5%	21 +5%
Elden Ring	6−7 −117%	12−14 +117%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −5%	21 +5%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −89.7%	55−60 +89.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −5%	21 +5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Dota 2	20−22 −55%	30−35 +55%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −91.7%	21−24 +91.7%
Fortnite	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Valorant	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%

This is how GTX 670MX SLI and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

GTX 670MX SLI is 89% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 90% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 86% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 670MX SLI is 58% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 253% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 670MX SLI is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
Radeon 780M is ahead in 58 tests (92%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.92	18.28
Recency	1 October 2012	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 84.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 670MX SLI in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.